On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 12:06:16PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
>Is this the right list for this patch? I feel like I was writing to
>/dev/null with the main cygwin list, as no one has responded to this thread.
Problems with your mail reader?
http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2002-05/msg00106.html
I can
> Is this the right list for this patch? I feel like I was writing to
> /dev/null with the main cygwin list, as no one has responded
> to this thread.
>
Right list for the patch; the explanatory stuff probably fits better on
cygwin@ though, with something like "Patch fixing this posted to
cygwin
Is this the right list for this patch? I feel like I was writing to
/dev/null with the main cygwin list, as no one has responded to this thread.
Original Message
From: Eric Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Patch: Re: Bug in stat()?
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: Eric Blake <[EMAIL
On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 11:48:10AM -0400, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
> Although what you propose is better than nothing, I would not do
> anything until we really understand what's going on.
Ok with me.
> Win98/ME
> 1) CLOSE_WAIT / WSAENOBUFS
>Application level fix: fcntl("close on fork")
>
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> I'd propose to try it first as I said in my previous mail:
Corinna,
did you see my e-mails of last two evenings?
- the blocking is a Win98 problem, the linger helps only for NT
- for NT, linger is (probably) not the "real" solution.
Although what you propose is better
On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 10:34:47AM +0100, Max Bowsher wrote:
> On cygwin-patches@, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
> > >So an ideal fix would detect "end of life" situations. Here is a brain
> > >storming idea: on a Cygwin close(), do a shutdown(.,2), free the Cygwin
> > Oops, absolutely no shutdown().
>
On Tue, Apr 30, 2002 at 10:12:08AM -0400, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >
> > That makes sense... but doesn't that again break something else?
>
> What it might break is the case for which linger was added in the first
> place, i.e. processes terminating and Windows flush
Hi Robert,
"Robert Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > If we just avoid setting up the destructor calls using atexit
> > then the destructors will only run once. So, in the normal
> > case, the destructor will run after much cleanup has occurred
> > in the cygwin DLL (specifically in th
> -Original Message-
> From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 1:49 AM
> If we just avoid setting up the destructor calls using atexit
> then the destructors will only run once. So, in the normal
> case, the destructor will run after much
> -Original Message-
> From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 2:16 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: IPC test suite
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 12:04:06AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
> >AFAICT I'm now testing every aspect (barring
10 matches
Mail list logo